2 Points Tex!
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Off Topic
Forum Discription: Anything non-Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28511
Printed Date: January-13-2025 at 12:00pm
Topic: 2 Points Tex!
Posted By: BuffaloBFN
Subject: 2 Points Tex!
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 7:46am
|
When the burglar has to call 911, you know wheels still go 'round in Texas. Priceless, and maybe we should mail this guy a beer. "You better come quick," she told the 911 operator, "or my husband's going to shoot him." "I'm out in the country somewhere. Some guy's got a gun on me," he said in the call. "He's going to come shoot me," he continued. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=texas%20burglar%20911&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-504083_162-57557801-504083%2Fchristopher-moore-alleged-texas-burglar-calls-911-after-homeowners-hold-him-at-gunpoint%2F&ei=IwrDUOOFEoLC9gTk1IDQDg&usg=AFQjCNHN-nmZpvc9bzA_wS9dRWePWX2n9g" rel="nofollow - Story ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2331&sort=&pagenum=12&yrstart=1986&yrend=1990" rel="nofollow - 1988 BFN-sold "It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO |
Replies:
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 12:04pm
 In NYC, they probably would have arrested the homeowner, and given the burgular a multi-million dollar settlement for mental anguish. Anybody watch the 1971 movie "Dirty Harry" with Clint Eastwood? Other than the shoot-em-up theme, there is a liberal govt backstory as to how criminials have rights. Harry takes a more conservative approach and settles the score with his .44 Magmum. 
|
Posted By: skicat2001
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 12:15pm
 And David to add to your point.Tx is one of the states left with federal judges that are conservative.Crimnals have a real hard time down here.------------- 1985 CC 2001-SOLD Lee Michael Johnson |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:05pm
Apparently you have never been to NYC in the last 20 years. Last time I checked NY was a death penalty state and illinois and wisconsin werent. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
davidg wrote:Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:18pm
|
Clint Eastwood movies are best! One of my favorites..... Right turn Clyde. I hate when you hear criminals getting off free and the people they were trying to harm get into legal problems because of it. Anyone see the huge house explosion on the news here in Indy? Leveled 5 houses around it and damaged as many as 30 to beond repair. Strangly the house that blew up was empty and their pet cat was borded........ |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:30pm
I just picked the first large, liberal city that came to mind. I think I had my facts mixed up. NYC will toss you in jail for drinking a 32 oz. Big Gulp soda, or if you eat more than three grams of salt in a day. Let's use San Fransisco instead....a REALLY liberal city!! Besides, thats the city that "Dirty Harry" was set in.
|
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:34pm
Zach....Being from the Indy area, I followed that story. Wasn't the owner of the house in bankruptcy or something, and didn't he turn the gas on and let it leak into the house all day long before he somehow ignited it? |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:41pm
|
Considering you live pretty close to a large liberal city you might consider disparaging that one instead of making assumptions about ones you don't have any real knowledge of.. your soda comment is also wrong as it is not illegal to buy or sell a big gulp in any part of NY, NYC or otherwise.. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: ononewheel
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 1:55pm
|
It is a pretty good story. One I actually like to hear instead of the wack job that shoots the perp, just because he can. Gun control means so much more than hitting your target. Anyone can hit a target and pull a trigger, but knowing when to pull it, is what really matters. These freaks in Florida who are shooting the first chance they get are just making the gun control argument. This is not the wild west anymore. ------------- If we let the professionals do everything it takes all the fun out of youtube |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:06pm
|
Yea David. I nver heard if they made an offical determination of cause yet. I mean as big as that was that had to have been an entire house just pressurized with gas to go boom like that. I ran into one of our old mecahnics from the Chrysler dealer I worked at and he lived within a mile and said it knocked stuff off his wall. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:06pm
|
Joe, do you think there is any link between strict guns laws and high crime rates, and minimal gun laws and low crime rates. Your state and my state are good examples of both. Maine is full of guns and we have a very low crime rate. Only about 25 murders per year and most of those are domestic. We are not a stand your ground state. You have to be fearful of your life and have no other alternative, but if someone enters your home, the law is on the homeowner's side. |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:07pm
Okay, Chicago it is. You are absolutely right. Way too liberal for my liking. Our property taxes are outrageous, even in the burbs, and the state is one of five or so, along with New York and California that are deep in debt due to promises made to govt workers that are unsustainable. But, we don't have the Big Gulp ban....yet. So, enlighten me. What is the soda ban in NYC that Mayor Bloomberg implemented? And the salt ban? There is definitely something going on there. He is leading the "nanny state" initiative to make sure his citizens don't hurt themselves since they don't have the common sense not to drink too much soda, or eat too much salt without his divine guidance. |
Posted By: mark c
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:16pm
Not yet. It takes affect on March 12, and its a local NYC health department rule. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:36pm
|
Arrested for possesion of Big Gulps.... haha |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 2:48pm
Mark....do you know if that is the Big Gulp ban or the salt ban, or both? I can't wait to see the NYC'rs this coming spring. They are going to be looking fine just in time for swim suit weather. Thank you Mayor Bloomberg! |
Posted By: BuffaloBFN
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 3:02pm
|
Dude, you're bogarting my gulp! I saw the Texas story on Red Eye this morning and found it on CBS to make sure it was real. The segment was a riot... "shoot him in the legs, don't kill him". I'll link it if they do. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2331&sort=&pagenum=12&yrstart=1986&yrend=1990" rel="nofollow - 1988 BFN-sold "It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO |
Posted By: mark c
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 5:23pm
No sugery drinks over 16 oz may be sold in NYC, and any establishment that serves them and has self service machines can not have cups larger than 16 oz on the property. We must be protected from ourselves at all costs, no sence in being responsible for your own well being. NYC is one of the most F'ed up places on earth as far as local laws, ordinances and permiting processes. it's all set up for someones brother inlaw to make a ton of money either expediting permits, ot collecting fees for permits, and yes I have and am dealing with this situation at work. |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 7:14pm
|
Restaurants, movie theaters , and street vendors ate regulated... Big gulps are not... Feel free to buy two cups at the movie theater if you come visit. I don't disagree that NYC has a lot of permitting issues - but if some one truly feels the need to post on a great website that brings people together who share common interests a bunch of disparaging comments about other people that serve to do nothing but drive people apart they could at least do the due diligence of reading and making sure that the devisive comments they are posting are actually true. Or you could just not make comments about people or places you don't know anything about- hint if you got your info about these people or places from rush or fox you don't know anything about them. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 10:23pm
Joe, If 7-11 wanted to license the big gulp to a restaurant chain or theater chain, could it be sold in New York city? If not than New York City has made it illegal to sell a big gulp in parts of the city. That is not an knowledge-less assumption. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 10:55pm
Found this image, and thought it was appropriate for where this thread has gone. Please enjoy it in the good humor it is intended. I hope it doesn't offend anyone. 
|
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 11:27pm
|
Now, to help clarify this "healthy" and vigorous discussion, there is a ban on sugary drinks in NYC over 16 ozs. I found an article online that indicates The Big Gulp will be exempt due to the fact it is served in a convenience store. Here is an exerpt from a New York Times article. "Only establishments that receive inspection grades from the health department, including movie theaters and stadium concession stands, will be subject to the rules. Convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its king-size Big Gulp drinks, would be exempt, along with vending machines and some newsstands." So, apparently 7-11 stores will still be able to serve their trademarked Big Gulp(R) at their facilities as convenience stores do not get city inspection grades. However, in my opinion, the tradename "Big Gulp" is being used as a synonym for any large sugary drink, just as Xerox, or Kleenex brand names are used as generic names for any tissue paper, or copier. So, if I went to a theater in NYC, they would NOT be able to serve Big Gulps, but, if I went across the street to a 7-11, I would be able to enjoy the freedom of indulging in a LARGE, sugary, calorie-ladened, belly busting Big Gulp. However, because I have self-control, and am educated on health issues, I would instead opt for a 12 oz can of Diet Coke. And, yes, I know that the chemicals in Diet Coke are not the greatest. But, at least I have the freedom to choose. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow - Article on Sugary Drinks Ban in New York Times |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 11:32pm
|
I guess between not being either insecure or unhappy with my life I dont feel the need to tear down others to make myself feel better. This is probably why I dont need to cling to right wing propaganda which of course has its stock and trade in pandering to those looking to feel smarter and superior to thier fellow americans. Me I think we are all a lot more similar than we are different.. so I dont get on a thread about a pretty cool story and start insulting random areas of the country. To Bruces question... I don't really know that I feel gun control has much to do with crime rates.. certainly it is hard to say anything about it as a statewide issue in NY as there are extremely rural areas, 6 million acres of adirondack park, and of course dense cities like NY. For my own opinion I have no problem with a locality like NYC deciding to have relatively tight gun control, there is not a whole lot of hunting need down there and there are so many people around there are not a lot of shots you could take without seriously endangering an innocent bystander. Additionally you are never all that far from authorities that can come to your aid, unlike rural maine or in the upper or lower parts of my county in NY. When I lived in Virginia it was not unusual for us to wear unconcealed pistols during the day out in rural prince george county, but on the few occasions I saw people doing the same in Richmond.. I was not all that comfortable with it and wearing my own wouldnt have helped out the situation. It wasnt long after I moved there that they did ban wearing guns in bars, restuarants, etc.. but it was after someone got shot at a club I had just left (I was in the pizza place next store at the time). Different things work different places IMHO.. dont like the law in your city/state and cant get enough people to vote with you and change the law then you can always move. David next time you might want to rely on the new york times a little more and the right wing noise a little less.. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-08-2012 at 11:40pm
|
Joe.....Does anybody ever tell you that you are full of it, and yourself at times? Have a wonderful evening! |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 12:27am
|
Where but Illinois can a State rep who was one of the front runners for a recently vacated House seat,who is an advocate for gun control, be arrested for trying to board a plane at O'Hare with a gun? Not to mention said gun was not registered where he lives in Chicago but at his office in Springfield. "I forgot I had it in there" after he leaves his "job" at a security firm that also is a contributor to him and other Chicago politicians. "Don't mind the man behind the curtain" ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 1:13am
CA also a death penalty state. In fact, and intiative to end the death penalty was defeated in the last election. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 12:25pm
|
It doesn't seem to me that there is any evidence that gun control has an affect on crime rates. Supposedly DC had to allow possesion of guns due to a Supreme Court ruling. It would be interesting to see what if any affect that has had on crime in that city. Funny how a librel leaning state like CA voted to uphold the death penalty. I can see it being a deterent if they were carried out swiftly like in Saudi Arabia, but given the time it takes here, it doesn't seem like it is much of a threat to the criminals. They aren't thinking 20 years off. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 12:44pm
|
Study after study show violent crime decreases with gun ownership. As the left says, If it can just save one life it is worth it. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: skicat2001
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 2:38pm
I agree with you completly.My favorite western movies where from either Eastwood,and John Wayne.3rd would be Charles Bronson.My favorite Eastwood quote is"I know what you are thinking,did he shoot 5 or 6.Well in all this excitment and cant remeber myself.But you have to ask yourself one question.Do I feel lucky.Will do ya PUNK!! Right turn Clyde... ------------- 1985 CC 2001-SOLD Lee Michael Johnson |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 3:09pm
I agree. Further, at least in CA, studies show we would be money ahead to assign life without parole and be done with the it. The legal appeals, their cost, and the time it takes, means that over the sentence it costs us far more for a prisoner sentenced to death than it does for a prisoner sentenced to life with no parole. The economics were the reason the recall was on the ballot. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: BuffaloBFN
Date Posted: December-09-2012 at 8:06pm
They didn't have to spend much investigating this incident.  ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2331&sort=&pagenum=12&yrstart=1986&yrend=1990" rel="nofollow - 1988 BFN-sold "It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO |
Posted By: 74Wind
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 12:00am
OK, before we get too carried away on the Bloomberg-bashing, have you ever been there (or lately?) NYC is a great city and consistently ranks very low on crime rates, in fact a recent "Chicago crime rate soars.." article stated in the first 1/2 of 2012 Chicago had 30 percent more murders than NYC with only 1/3 the population... I grew up 30 miles away, and in the 70's NYC was a real pit. It's come a loooong way since those days of Abe Beame and Ed Koch and a lot of the credit goes to Bloomberg who has done a great job since 2001, and he does it all for $1.00 per year (forgoing the $225,000.00 salary). ------------- 1974 Southwind 18 1975 Century Mark II |
Posted By: mark c
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 12:13am
| Yep, been there probably at least a week a month, or every other month for the past 2 years. Been working at MSG rehab, and in the Department of Corrections prison system. Like to say I've been in more NYC jails than the Son of Sam. Except I get to go home every day. |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 12:53am
Do they really? I ask In a less than smart ass than usual way - cause I haven't really looked into this but I doubt it really makes any difference one way or the other...or more to the point that a statistically relevant study is even possible- too many other variables - someplace would have to either dramatically increase or decrease gun ownership without changing any other variables to find out. Maybe dc will someday show some trend ? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 2:17am
|
It has been studied in a variety of ways including comparing countries, states, and states before and after changes in concealed carry. The basic premise is that only the honest comply with gun control, and that thugs do not like a fair fight. I have heard of one economist that felt concealed carry prevents 2 million crimes a year. That seems a little extreme to me, but guns are attributed with "saving" significantly more lives than they take, Of course the new york times will never tell you that. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 2:41am
|
country to country is a lousy comparison ... And the only ones I have seen that compare America to similar countries show they have less guns and less violent crime... State to state also is a tough one cause no two states are similar enough demographically and yet dissimilar enough in terms of gun control. If you go down to a personal level the only studies available show that gunownership increases your net risk of dying in a homicide although not much(certainly less if it isn't kept loaded and is kept locked) .... So I guess I will revert to smart ass mode and say show me the study, should be easy since it is study after study... ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:34am
|
I would bet that if you take violent gun crimes out of the equation, the USA is still high on the list for violence, so it is more cultural rather than gun related. |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:53am
I am guessing crime rates are more cultural related, more poverty level related, more whether your football(futbal) team wins or loses related.. just about more everything related than levels of gun control related. I would accept a wash - which is certainly no reason to restrict gun ownership because they do have positive value, realistically I expect a slight direct relationship ... which would be an acceptable risk in my community, but that there is study after study showing a documented reduction in crime levels with increased gun ownership with all other factors taken into account.. sounds like something that is repeated over and over but has no basis in fact. Even the Earp brothers back in tombstone knew that having people check their guns on the way into town was a valid method of reducing violent crime, just as they knew that out on the range any cowboy without a gun was a fool.. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 12:13pm
|
In my state, whether you are open carry or concealed carry, you can't bring a gun into a bar, church or school, which seems reasonable to me. But, I don't understand how any jurisdiction can control firearms possesion in your own home. |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 5:27pm
|
I did some homework, and poked around in the primary literature a bit. One study that tracked concealed carry statistics as they relate to social cohesion and policing says this; "Most importantly, police should emphasize to citizens in these areas that hand-gun carrying has not been shown conclusively to reduce crime, and that there are other private crime-prevention techniques that carry more promise of keeping communities safer from crime." Jacinta M. Gau, (2008) "A neighborhood-level analysis of concealed hand-gun permits", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 31 Iss: 4, pp.674 - 693 And then there is this, from a synthesis of research carried out during the 1990s and 2000s; "Ayres and Donohue, having tested more than 700 alternate regressions, concluded that there is “no credible statistical evidence that the adoption of concealed-carry (or ‘shall issue’) laws reduced crime” (2003a, p. 1372). The leading reanalysis of Lott’s data by quantitatively sophisticated noneconomists reached the same conclusion (Black and Nagin 1998)."Levitt and Miles (2007) review the literature on shall-issue laws and express skepticism. They note that other analyses, including one that Levitt coauthored (Donohue and Levitt 2001), identify a long series of problems that “raised questions” about the validity of the concealed weapons hypothesis." Learning from the Limitations of Deterrence Research Michael Tonry Crime and Justice , Vol. 37, No. 1 (2008), pp. 279-311 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Article DOI: 10.1086/524825 If anyone wants to read more about what these authors say I have provided the the citation information. Also, I suggest using Google Scholar next time you want answers. You should always want to side-step the middle-man (i.e. media outlets) when really making up your mind about something. Dave, based on my reading of the literature (yes, I read more papers than just these but I thought that they summed it up well) there is not much to support your claim that "study after study show violent crime decreases with gun ownership." Doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be allowed to have concealed carry or own a gun (two things I am in favor of in fact), just that the notion that on average it will protect you from crime is not strongly supported. |
Posted By: politicallycorrect
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 5:52pm
|
Guns don't kill people, http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_3493.shtml" rel="nofollow - Crazy people with guns do! ------------- Skin grows back...fiberglass doesn't!! |
Posted By: mark c
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 8:19pm
|
How would carrying a concealed weapon ever affect crime rate. If no one can see it, it has no deterant affect. Walk around carrying a 16" fully automatic M4 carbine on your shoulder and see how respectful people are. Of course it helps to be wearing a uniform of some kind. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 8:41pm
| It has a deterant effect if enough people carry them because criminals then are afraid to screw with people. |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 8:52pm
I assume you meant to say... "It could have a deterant [sic] effect if enough people carry them because criminals then might be afraid to screw with people, but the data don't really back this up. It is much more effective to lift people out of poverty and fight the root causes of violent crime than their symptoms." ...right? Again, not saying that concealed carry is a bad idea. Just not a very good one if your goal is reduce crime rates. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 9:04pm
| Hansel, I guess you might say that reducing crime begins at home. You're taking it a few steps too far. The idea is if people carry, they can defend themselves, not become vilgilantes. I've never heard the argument stretched to lifting people out of poverty, LOL. It's a persoanl matter and we should all have a choice. Choice is good, right? |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 9:08pm
|
It would be pretty hard to back up either claim , first of all as bruce said there is probably a certain deterrent effect if enough people carried.I conceal carry appr 50% of the time . if I was walking down the street in your average town / city and there were 2k people out walking in say a 2 block radius I would venture a guess there would also be no more than 30 or 40 others at most who would also be licensed .I bet that figure is a stretch and of those 30 ppl I bet they carry 20 to 50 % of the time .. I cant see how any reputable study could accurately form very concrete evidence either way. it is our right , it is a grave responsibility , and it covers the first rule of a gun fight ...bring a gun ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 9:11pm
|
by the way anyone on here have their green card or class 3? I have applied for my c&r federal license and my green card approved in my town. in mass you need both for full auto weapons ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 9:22pm
| You must know the Chief! From what I hear from my brothers in Mass, it's all up to the chief and some won't give a license for protection. |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 9:29pm
|
yes we grew up together. the investment seems to have more return than anything i have ever seen. i should have done it all 3 yrs ago when i was first looking to buy something. I have a friend with a browning belt fed .on a tri pod so fun . ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:04pm
Hi Bruce, I don't actually think I am taking it too far, since in my concealed carry reading I also came across published literature that made that very point. Indeed, that is why I felt confident going there, so thanks for letting me share some of it with you now! So you know where these come from I searched for "poverty and crime rates meta analysis" using Google Scholar. A "meta-analysis" is a way of combining the results of many papers together to see what they say and is commonly used to understand consistent outcomes in science. First there is this... "A "meta-analysis" was undertaken to determine the relative effects of macro-level predictors of crime. Indicators of "concentrated disadvantage"(e.g., racial heterogeneity, poverty, and family disruption) are among the strongest and most stable predictors." Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of Crime: A Meta-Analysis Travis C. Pratt and Francis T. Cullen Crime and Justice , Vol. 32, (2005), pp. 373-450 ...then this... "The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength. It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime." Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies Ching-Chi Hsieh and M. D. Pugh Criminal Justice Review Autumn 1993 vol. 18 no. 2 182-202 ...and this... "Income inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent crime as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership and lack of social trust. In turn, both social trust and group membership were associated with firearm violent crime. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms." Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime Bruce P. Kennedy, , Ichiro Kawachi, Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Kimberly Lochner, Vanita Gupta Social Science & Medicine Volume 47, Issue 1, 1 July 1998, Pages 7–17 ...and finally for those of you who care so little for income inequality there is this... "We observed a moderately strong correlation between poverty and homicide, though the relationship was weaker than that between income inequality and homicide." Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation Ichiro Kawachi, Bruce P Kennedy, Richard G Wilkinson Social Science & Medicine Volume 48, Issue 6, March 1999, Pages 719–731 So Bruce, while you've never heard the argument made it has not only been made, I'd say that research that has been done strongly supports the tight link between poverty and crime. Just to be clear, I'm not just cherry-picking these studies you can do your own internet searches of the primary literature (again I strongly suggest using Google Scholar) and I'm confident that you will come up with the same results. I didn't realize that this seemingly obvious relationship between poverty and crime was controversial. You must not worry one bit then when you stroll through poor neighborhoods. I hope after reading this you reconsider your behavior. Peter, the fact that you "cant [sic] see how any reputable study could accurately form very concrete evidence either way" on the concealed carry issue says more about your understanding of science and its methods than it does what the reality is. To be clear I'm not calling you stupid or anything, but as someone who does statistics day in and day out I don't think any trained social scientist would agree with what you say. Just like you shouldn't trust me to fix anything underneath the doghouse of your boat cause I don't know what I'm doing down there, I doubt that you have any clue about what a professional scientist does and if not then you should leave study design to the professionals. Again, just to make sure I don't get misunderstood I am all for people owning guns if they want to. But more guns don't reduce crime rates, while increased poverty and income inequality does increase crime rates. If you are truly interested in reducing crime you should work to reduce the actual causes not arm yourself to the hilt. |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:12pm
|
I worked 58 hours last week and dont see this week being any less, But i will do my Joe assigned homework and and get the some studies as soon as practical. ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:13pm
| Hansel, You misunderstood me. No doubt poverty and crime go hand in hand. I've been around poverty. I just don't think there is a social aspect to someone wanting to defend themself. Sure, the big picture may be to lift people out of poverty, or drug use, or just liking to screw with people, and maybe people wouldn't need to defend themselves, but the near sited reality is when someone is about to do you harm, it is nice to have access to the equalizer. I once heard someone say that back in the early part of the 20th century when many people carried guns it was a polite society. |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:17pm
|
Whenever I pull out my concealed weapon the chick has a serious look of concern. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1143" rel="nofollow - Mi Bowt |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:24pm
Depends on what her concerns are.  ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:29pm
|
is she concerned for your well being from all the yrs of laughter? or because she really wanted to go for a hike over the weekend and she might be limited physically ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:38pm
I just showed you a bunch of published research that says guns don't reduce crime, but that other things like poverty increase it. You say that I misunderstand you, but you keep coming back to having guns as a way to create a "polite society." I agree with you that I'd want a gun on me if somebody was going to cause me or someone nearby grave bodily harm. Let's stop there. You had me with you until you ended your comment with the above statement that brings it back to the idea that "well if we just had more guns things would be safer around here." I am very confident that your notion is false, and that Dave is going to have an impossible time showing otherwise. I'm even going to make a Bush-esque pre-emptive strike on Dave and disqualify him from using John Lott as a credible source since multiple papers that I have looked at consider he and his studies that promote these ideas to be unreliable at best. Again, carry a gun if you want but don't promote it as a general crime fighting strategy. It doesn't work. |
Posted By: 74Wind
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:45pm
|
Here in Georgia open-carry is not uncommon: Test drove an old XJ-6 from a well-to-do gentleman in Metro ATL and whilst out for the drive found a large handgun in center console. When i returned, I mentioned it, and very matter-of-factly he replied..."I wondered where that one was...." Lunch at a Subway down in peanut/cotton country and fairly common to see open-carry handguns on the farmers. Typically not for crime, but for rattlesnakes (some fearsome 8-footers down there) Not long ago, at a KFC in rural Middle-Georgia this girl walks in. Young, tall, blonde, and georgeous; short shorts and tall boots, with a big old .44 clipped to her waist. You coulda heard a pin drop. Maybe 20, sure her daddy taught her to carry it and how to use it. A perfect 10 packing serious iron. God Bless the USA. ------------- 1974 Southwind 18 1975 Century Mark II |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:46pm
|
Peter, not exactly sure, the mace always makes it really hard too see. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1143" rel="nofollow - Mi Bowt |
Posted By: jimsport93
Date Posted: December-10-2012 at 11:58pm
|
Again, carry a gun if you want but don't promote it as a general crime fighting strategy. It doesn't work.[/QUOTE] When I am the intended victim it is a great criminal fighting tactic! ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2798 - 93 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 1:22am
|
Today on a talk show out of Milwaukee (not Fox), I heard the host talking about "A Tale of Two Cities". So I found it online this evening. It was an older study from the 80's comparing gun violence in Seattle vs. Vancouver. From just a brief search, what I can see is that the Brady Organization indicates that because Vancouver had stricter gun control standards, there was less gun violence. However, the talk show host indicated that there was more data beneath the details of the study. The indication was that Seattle, at the time at least, has a much larger poor inner city area, and Vancouver had virtually no poor inner city areas. The ultimate conclusion was that if you pull out the inner city factor of the two cities, gun violence was similar. The data that Hansel reported above seems to at least back up that data. Crime is much more predominant in inner city areas where poverty and income inequity are extreme. Not wanting to upset anybody, I will forgo the thoughts on why the talk show host thought this was happening in the inner city areas, and that I happened to agree with. The "summary report" below indicates this data can be used to lobby for stricter gun control laws. http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/153/" rel="nofollow - A Tale Of Two Cities.....Seattle vs. Vancouver |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 1:51am
|
A friend sent me this one some time back. Attached is a link to a youtube vidoe show a senior citizen confronting two thieves in a coffee shop that came in with guns. This old boys kicks some butt and takes some names. Not sure how to make it into a video link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZbW2Q92MM" rel="nofollow - Senior Citizen Packing Heat....Takes on Two Thugs |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 9:53am
| Hansel, You're trying to have an argument with the wrong guy. Go back and read my posts. Let's see your studies on politeness during the early 20th century. |
Posted By: BuffaloBFN
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 11:38am
|
I still want to see something on the common use of the word 'democrat'; specifically in the 19th century. At what age do parents start their kids handling guns? The boy in this story(wayyy back at the beginning) looked about 12-14. I met a guy yesterday who is selling a guitar to buy his daughter a Ruger 10/22. She is 12. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2331&sort=&pagenum=12&yrstart=1986&yrend=1990" rel="nofollow - 1988 BFN-sold "It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 11:46am
| I took my first shot at 6. I can't remember how old my kids were, but it was before 12. They were 6 & 7 when they started skiing, I can remember that! Parents should teach their kids basic gun safety by about 5 or 6, even if they never plan to own any guns. |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 1:34pm
I read the study that you are referring to, and I don't think it is as easily sunk as the radio host wants to believe. The authors themselves raise issues of inner city crime as one thing that may explain part of the pattern, but that data on race and poverty were not available from Vancouver and so there was no way to compare those numbers. However they show that while rates of crime were similar between cities overall, gun crime was far higher in Seattle. I think that is beyond dispute. Whether or not that is due to gun laws is up to you to decide. Thanks for the info. The original source (Sloan et al. 1988) is worth a read if you are interested in this issue. You can find a pdf of it http://home.sbu.edu/rhughes/Handgun%20Study%202.PDF" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 2:00pm
Hi Bruce, I'm not really trying to have an argument with you, but I am trying to get you to clarify what you really mean. When you originally said that I "misunderstood" you I went back to see where I had gone wrong. I found that we agree that you should be able to carry a gun if you wanted to (provided you are not a felon, etc...), but that you continue to promote the view that guns create a "polite" society. In this post that I am quoting you end with "politeness in the early 20th century" which I assume is again an attempt to say that more guns leads to a polite (by that I think you mean "safe") society. From a quick look it seems that there is not a lot published on crime that far back, and I would guess that is so because good data are hard to find from that time period. From what I did see it appears that crime has actually decreased since the 19th century or at the least remained relatively stable. Even if I could find studies from that time period, I'm not sure why they would matter. We don't live in the late 19th or early 20th Century. "Democrats" and "Republicans" from that time bear little resemblance to their counterparts today (sorry Greg). Indeed the world was a very different place. I don't see how even if it were a more "polite" time (which I very sincerely doubt) why that should change my or your view on gun regulations in the 21st Century. Own and carry a gun if you would like to. The 2nd Amendment will back you up. But neither it nor social science back up claims that more guns reduces crime rates (that is, create "polite society"). In fact there is much evidence to the contrary. Indeed the 2nd amendment as written is mostly in the context of allowing a "well regulated militia" to ensure "the security of a Free State" though later Supreme Court rulings upheld the use of firearms for a variety of lawful uses including self defense. Maybe more gun deaths is the price we pay for our 2nd Amendment rights, and it seems many of us would think that the price is worth it. That is fine, but don't dress up our 2nd Amendment right as something that it is not. |
Posted By: skicat2001
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 2:04pm
|
I personally was raised around guns.My dad enforced SAFTEY first.There are many who where not and crimnals and thugs get a hold of them and resort to violence.His ol lady cheats on him,he finds out and kills innocent people,which is sad.There is at least down here in TX,plenty of people that offer rules and regulations and classes to better if you are interested in carrying. The 2nd amendment created by the founding fathers was they believed in protecting yourselves from the goverment and Native Americans taking peoples land. If a man walks in a restraunt or a public place and opens fire killing innocent people,would you rather hit the deck and hope and pray you dont get hit,or have the right to carry and fight back.I would like to know?? ------------- 1985 CC 2001-SOLD Lee Michael Johnson |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 2:08pm
|
Hansel....I will have to find the time to read it. Thanks for posting the full study. What are your thoughts on stricter gun laws? I am pretty sure where you may come down on the issue. My thoughts are that even if guns were totally banned today, criminals would have no problems getting them, and they would still continue to break the law with them. Gun owners need to be responsible in their ownership of them, and I know most are. It breaks my heart when I hear about kids getting ahold of a loaded gun in the house, and killing themselves or a sibling. When I was a kid, I came within a split second of having a very bad accident with a 12 gauge shotgun. Let's just say that my 42 year old brother is still here to tell the tale, but, our window and curtains in the dining room didn't fare so well. If ever I had an angel on my shoulder, it was that day. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 2:24pm
|
Hansel, polite means polite and not safe. It means people were not apt to get in each others face because they did not know what the consequences may be. People regularly give people the finger today, tell each to go screw themselves and many other forms of disrespect. Years ago people weren't so quick to display that type of behavior. I don't wish to debate the subject as while you are obviously well spoken, you're whole view point is centered in liberalism and is not objective. The second amendment, is consistent with the rest of the amendments as an individual right and not a collective right. When the Bill of Rights was written there was no national guard or army and the country was dependent on people showing up with their own guns to form a militia. |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:17pm
|
Hi Dave, I'm actually generally in favor of guns. I have some, and plan to own more. I use them for hunting and sport shooting. I have friends and family that legally use concealed carry. One of the first things I bought with my own money as a kid was my beloved BB gun. Still have it! That said, I'm sure if we had fewer of them there would be less gun violence. People kill people, not guns. But sometimes guns make it easier for them. Our Constitution says we can have guns. Until our society decides to scrap that or alter it significantly, then targeted or random gun violence will continue to occur more frequently than perhaps it should. I suppose every freedom comes at a price. Bruce, it may seem like I am centered in "liberalism" and perhaps I am. I agree that there is WAY to much incivility and lack of politeness, and I wish I knew what to do about it. I am sure that you and I have a lot more in common in the way we carry ourselves, though we may at times differ politically, than lots of other folks that vote the same as either one of us. Thanks for going back and forth with me, I really do enjoy it and I always learn something. I hope you feel the same way. I really hope to make it to a reunion one of these days to meet some of you all! I agree on the 2nd Amendment, which is why I don't think it should be used to fight crime in general. A gun in the hands of a well prepared defender might be good for stopping an individual crime. I believe the gun owners on this forum probably fit into this category. I don't believe, based on published evidence and data, that those same guns reduce crime rates overall. Own, train, and use a gun to protect yourself if necessary but don't be under any illusions that you are also protecting your broader community by simply carrying. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:31pm
| Hansel, I think we all here at CCF have a lot more in common than not, and I don't get excited talking about this stuff. My interest in boats is far greater than my interest is in guns or politics. The reunions are what has brought CCF together and made it what it is. I hope they haven't been dropped for good. |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:40pm
|
why do the reunions seem to have faded away ? ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:45pm
http://correctcraftfan.com/reunions/" rel="nofollow - Reunions take 2012 off Long story short, organizing an official reunion is a lot of work, and its a thankless job! Plenty of mini-reunions around though- and theyre every bit as much fun (if not more so). ------------- |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:50pm
|
My guess is they became too much work, and while initially they helped the site gel, it's gelled. Minis seem to be the way. The Sebago Long Lake region would be an excellent place to have one, although there has always been limited interest in that area as it is so far away for most people. Seems like with the new Nautique dealer in Naples, there might be opportunity, but there would have to be interest enough to get people to travel to Maine. |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 3:57pm
|
Faded Away!? I coulda swore I went to 4 of them last year, not including a quicker gathering at ReidP's that werent too bad either and Green Lake.. took a week off from that one but I'll work it back in this year. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-11-2012 at 4:00pm
|
Maine is one of the few US states that I have yet to visit but when I do I will look you up and buy you a beer or two in our own mini-reunion. I've been watching this site for years, but I was always too busy to make it to on of the big reunions. Bummer... |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: December-12-2012 at 2:53pm
|
Maybe next year Hansel, Green Lake is only a day trip away from Mad City Peter, you should have made an appearance at the benjii's, it was a great time!! ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1143" rel="nofollow - Mi Bowt |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-12-2012 at 4:40pm
| Green Lake is close to Madison for sure, but every summer since 2007 I've been living or traveling outside the state. Hopefully this year is the year! Otherwise someday I'll just have to crash a Chicago beers get together as a consolation prize. |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: December-12-2012 at 7:52pm
|
Civility ? - We start talking boats & reunions and everyones civil.  Civility starts and ends at home - home what a nice word,calming in fact. Your life is your great book. We are blessed with the freedom to write whatever we want in our own book today - BUT - tomorrow we can't erase what we wrote. So make sure you write carefully. = Civility PS The day "they" make my gun illigal I'll wake up a criminal. ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 4:26am
|
I am finally finding some time to do my homework. Here are a few fun facts. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] Hansel, what do you have against John Lott. His story is interesting. He was/is an academic who became a supporter of the second amendment only after he did a nation wide survey of gun laws and crime rates. His supporters and detractors seem to fall along political lines based thier position on gun control. Here is an overview. Concealed weapons and crime rate In an 1997 article written with David B. Mustard[17] and Lott's subsequent books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, Lott argued that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America. He supported this position with a statistical tabulation of time series data from census and other social and economic surveys of individual United States counties in different years, which he used in a multivariate model of crime rates. His published results purported to show a reduction in violent crime associated with states' adoption of laws that allow the adult population to carry concealed weapons. The work was immediately controversial, drawing both support and opposition. Several academics praised Lott's methodology, including Florida State University economist Bruce Benson,[18] Cardozo School of Law professor John O. McGinnis,[19] and University of Mississippi professor William F. Shughart.[20] The book was favorably reviewed by reviews from academics Gary Kleck, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell.[21][citation needed] Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed;[22] however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices.[23] Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[24] Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[25] and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[26] In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[27] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[28] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[29] Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[30] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. Here is another well known comparison/ experiment. On May 1, 1982, a new ordinance was passed by the city council of Kennesaw. This law ( Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms) made it mandatory for each household to own and maintain a gun, as well as ammunition. Not only was the ordinance passed by city council, it was a unanimous decision. The ordinance states the gun law is needed "In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore." Of course, exclusions were made to convicted felons, people with religious objections, and people with disabilities. Members of the city council introduced and voted for the ordinance to make a statement when a city in Illinois, Morton Grove, passed an ordinance banning hand guns from anyone other than peace officers. Morton Grove was the first community to ever ban the sale and possession of handguns. Both city ordinances drew worldwide media attention, with Kennesaw's attention being negative. Nicknamed "Gun Town USA" from a column titled the same and written by Art Buchwald, expectations were for the town to covert back to the Old West style of handling disagreements with ruthless shoot outs. This expectation never happened. In fact, more than 25 years after the ban, not a single resident of Kennesaw has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender. There has been one firearm related murder but not from a resident of Kennesaw. Since the ordinance, no child has ever been injured with a firearm in Kennesaw. Crime dropped after the ordinance and the city has maintained an exceptionally low crime rate ever since, even with the population swelling from 5,000 in 1982 to approximately 30,000 today. The truth is crime has plummeted and population has soared. In comparison, the population of Morton Grove, Illinois has dropped slightly and the crime rate has increased, especially right after the ban. Putting a ban on owning a firearm may keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens but will it put them at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their families and possessions? Criminals who do not abide by laws anyway, will still possess handguns. If you were a criminal planning on breaking into a home to steal or cause somebody harm, would you choose a home in a city where every homeowner is required to carry a gun and ammunition or a home in a city where homeowners are banned from carrying guns? ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 11:55am
|
Thanks for finding that information.. I guess if nothing else it doesnt increase crime . ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: skicat2001
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 2:19pm
|
Just curious is CT, a right to carry state?? Great post Dave... ------------- 1985 CC 2001-SOLD Lee Michael Johnson |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 3:25pm
|
sick of the media ... aol headline a minute ago man wounds 3 at hospital.. police fatally wounded him.. how about police kill man who was trying to kill others .. seems more accurate why do they soften what the perp was doing it seems like they make the criminal a victim all the time ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 4:46pm
|
I usually stay out of the politics threads because in my opinion you can't change other people's opinions. So it isn't worth trying. But I am an advocate of the 2nd Amendment and am a gun owner, both for hunting and self defense purposes. I have a concealed weapons permit but don't carry all the time, I probably should more so but maybe complacency has gotten the best of me. But lately with all the senseless violence going on I should remind myself to carry everywhere I can. A month ago I missed this one by about 10 minutes. My friend and I were at the very ATM this happened at and then went into watch a Jai-Alai match next door: http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/11/17/victim_shoots_robber.html" rel="nofollow - ATM Robbery backfires Score one for the good guys. Score another here: http://www.allamericanblogger.com/19420/waffle-house-robber-killed-by-concealed-carry-permit-holder/" rel="nofollow - Waffle House Robber killed Now my thoughts are, is it better to be a victim, or to watch other innocent people become victims, or is it better to be an upstanding citizen legally carrying to protect ones self, family, and others? Our country is broken, and every time there is a tragedy, people want to blame the guns and gun control. I don't understand this. Guns have been around and a part of this country since its inception. It would have been just as easy for that douchebag that just killed all those poor kids to hijack a school bus and run it into a river. Taking the guns away is not going to fix the problem of people killing each other. Does it make it any easier? Probably not. Criminals will always find a way to do the evil things that they do. He could have done a number of things to accomplish his ultimate goal. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 9:00pm
|
Dave, Thanks for digging around a bit. Sadly though I find your "homework" to be less than convincing, and not just because you invoked Lott to back you up. Let's examine some of your arguments.
First of all, I think that you should let us all know when you are using other people's words and when you are using your own. You copy and pasted liberally (indeed almost your entire post from what I can tell). You need to provide your sources so that we can evaluate them. Luckily these sources are a short copy and paste away for me too. The above and stats that follow are from a http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp" rel="nofollow - justfacts.com page about gun laws. I looked at the actual study that they use to get these data, and then make their (wild in my mind) extrapolations from. The study (title and abstract of which you can http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1007588410221" rel="nofollow - read here ) was never designed to study rates of crime. It was interested in comparing two types of surveys that got different results about crime rates. I cannot get the full paper so it is hard to say, but I'd hazard a guess that given its goals it is probably not an authoritative source of crime statistics, and the crass side of me suspects that justfacts.com probably went with the data that they liked the most from the paper in the first place.
This information is lifted directly from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott" rel="nofollow - Wikipedia page on John Lott. If you take the time to read the entire thing you can see that Lott has left academia to become a prolific op-ed writer and Fox News contributor. He himself is a political operative, even going so far as to recently co-author a book with everybody's pal Grover Norquist. He's is free to do these things, and probably get paid big bucks, and I am free to question his motives and methods, which I and many others do.
Ah Dave, such selective copy and pasting, or perhaps it was just an accident that you left out the final sentence in that quote... "On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."
From the Kennesaw Historical Society President Robert Jones comes these insights, "Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before. "The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said." and, "Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity. "It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them." - http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm" rel="nofollow - -Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw By Jonathan Hamilton and David Burch Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writers http://www.mdjonline.com/StoryDetail.cfm?id=10017128&Section=Home%20Page 3-14-1 Your source here appears to be some version of http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/" rel="nofollow - this website. One of the councilmen quoted, a Mr. J.O. Stephenson is quite adamant that the law reduced crime, but of course he probably thought it would in the first place and has every reason to take credit for the law's "success" today. I personally don't take these two cities as much evidence for or against the use of guns to lower crime, especially since they are both cities that are affluent and relatively crime-free in the first place. Indeed as I have pointed out repeatedly in earlier posts crime is much more well explained by other social factors. Indeed some later analysis has cast doubt on the conclusion that the observed drop in crime is attributable to the gun law (per the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21" rel="nofollow - Kennesaw Wikipedia page ).
Again, as I have posted previously there is very little evidence that your theory that guns deter crime from occurring is a valid one. All you've done in this post is liberally copy and paste sections of websites, conveniently leaving out portions that don't support your views or failing to provide adequate background that would help us to assess the context of the information. I'm not just trying to be a contrarian, but while you might be satisfied with your homework I think that you should probably go back and try again. Bring me a peer-reviewed primary source publication (non-Lott authored) that shows that more guns reduces crime. Not murky websites, Wikipedia copy and pastes, and anecdotes about cities and their laws. Until then I, and I hope others on this board, will not draw the lesson that guns reduce crime. |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 9:30pm
I just cited 2 instances where they did. Concrete, real evidence. Would you like me to find more? It's not hard to search them out. Here's some more fodder just in case: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/gun-carrying-citizen-stops-man-from-stabbing-more-shoppers/" rel="nofollow - Gun carrying citizen stops man with knife before stabbing more victims http://k2radio.com/customer-turns-the-tables-on-nail-salon-robber/" rel="nofollow - Gun-carrying woman stops robbery suspect http://fox2now.com/2012/10/31/foiled-bank-robbery-stirs-debate-on-conceal-carry/" rel="nofollow - Concealed carry stops bank robbery in Missouri ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 10:18pm
|
Hi Bret, Yes, guns stopped crime in those instances. If you look back to some of my earlier posts in this thread you will see that I agree that guns can at times stop individual crimes. However some members have tried on this thread to promote the idea that increased numbers of guns decrease crime rates in society overall. As I have shown, and nobody has yet been able to refute, many published studies that examine the relationship between guns and crime find that there is no link between them; i.e. more guns do not decrease crime rates. Therefore, if you want to lower crime fix the problems in society (primarily socioeconomic). Own, carry, and use guns for the right reasons. A gun may stop a crime. But guns at large don't stop crime. There is a difference. |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 10:22pm
I couldn't agree with you more. But the masses don't want to hear this. It's much easier to make excuses, blame guns, prescribe more meds, and shovel the *************** under the carpet. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 11:13pm
|
Hey Bret, I hope my post didn't come across as too heavy handed, it was a quick reply. I am glad we agree there! Cheers |
Posted By: OverMyHead
Date Posted: December-16-2012 at 11:29pm
|
Hansel You are correct that I cut and pasted information. You seem to be tired of my opinion and wanted me to provide information to back it up. I like how you discredit a convenient compilation because you disagree with the compiler, but in effect you are saying we cannot trust the US center for disease control or the Journal of quantitative criminology. I choose the Wikipedia page because it seemed fairly neutral on John which I thought was big of me. As I am not an academic, and I am not providing research, I see this topic as a debate, where arguments are made pro or con and others can refute them as they see fit. By the way I edited out well over three quarters of the page and I did it selectively so as not to bore to many with excessive information and to support my argument. Here is a direct copy of the line you are questioning. "On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[24] and here is yours.
It would appear that you have manipulated the original content by making it bold to add emphasis that the author did not intend, and also eliminated the footnote that allows it to be further investigated in its original source. Such horrors from and academic. As for John, Again he became a proponent of the 2nd amendment after being convinced by his own research, not the other way around. At least he did some research, unlike like an Al Gore who went from politician to global warming (excuse me climate change now that the earth stopped warming) expert, and carbon credit salesman. Nearly all researchers are paid by someone. I am sure you do not work for free. Follow the money and you likely will find and agenda behind most research. If that is the criteria for discrediting someones work there is virtually no untainted research. As for kennisaw, guns are certainly only one factor, and yet the results were exactly what kennisaw envisioned. Coincidence? maybe. Fun? for sure. Back to my homework! ------------- For thousands of years men have felt the irresistible urge to go to sea, and many of them died. Things got better after they invented boats. 1987 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Hansel
Date Posted: December-18-2012 at 2:29am
|
Hi Dave, Thanks for engaging, as always. I'm not so tired of your opinion, which you are free to have, but I obviously get a little frustrated when an idea that doesn't actually have much support from the data gets entertained as a good one. I have used "I" way too many times in my posts, because really I am just doing some research and looking at information that other people tried hard to collect. The bottom line from everything that I have read, including five or so that I have read through rather thoroughly and another 5-10 that I have skimmed the main results, is agreed that concealed carry laws do not change crime rates one way or the other. Once again, for the record I am not against concealed carry, but I don't think that it should be advocated for a purpose that it clearly is not good for. I have two notions in your above post that I would like to briefly address;
You see this is a debate, but I don't think that you should. At one time there was an idea; people with guns scare bad guys from committing crimes, therefore more people with guns should scare more bad guys and crime rates should decrease. This is a nice idea, and makes some logical sense. Over the last two decades many crime researchers have examined the data and they have, aside from a small vocal minority, found that this is not the case. Therefore the debate is more or less settled. The question was raised, people did research on it, and now based on the best evidence available we have an answer. It isn't honest or fair to call it a debate anymore. Imagine the "debate" that a Bayliner was just as good as ski boat as a Ski Nautique. Sounds plausible, they are both boats and while the CC was designed to pull skiers maybe it is heavier and so still makes a bigger wake anyway. OK, you can measure things like how successfully can people run the course behind one boat versus the other, or the shape of the wakes behind the two. After examining the evidence most people would come to the conclusion that the SN is the better boat, but there will always be some people who like their Bayliner better, maybe because "they just ski better behind it." Because a few people, say 5 in a 100, prefer a Bayliner to a SN mean that you consider there to be an active debate on which is a better ski boat? I doubt you would.
When it is said, "All research is biased" it ignores the fact that lots of research is both explanatory and predictive. The vast majority of researchers that I know are open minded people that do as much as humanly possible to remove bias from their science. In fact the most exciting moments as a scientist can be when results come back that didn't match the expected outcome; many times this is where the great discoveries are made. Your viewpoint is rather crass, and conveniently allows the dismissal of science as an endeavor. It is kissing cousins with the notion of a scientific debate where there is none. It seeks to discredit and invalidate results that are inconvenient. True, some research is biased but that often occurs when an industry with a vested interest in the outcome is the funding source. Massive amounts of research is funded by the public and I am very confident that it is greatly bias-free.
I know you are winking here, but it is obvious to any reader where I got it and that I emphasized it with bold text. "Manipulation" is not a word that fits what I did very well. That sentence pretty much sinks your line of argument, and it appeared to me that you may have left it out on purpose, especially given the fact that it was the only sentence in that entire paragraph that you missed. Maybe that is just because it was the final one, or it was an accident. Only you know for sure. I would hazard a guess that you see research as looking for evidence that backs up your belief. Research is having a question and looking for an answer. When this all began last week I had a question, "Do more guns reduce crime?" I found an answer, a resounding, "No." From what I can tell you have a belief, "More guns reduce crime", and you've done your "homework" to find evidence that backs it up. There will always be some "evidence" out there for even the most far fetched ideas. But that "evidence" isn't "proof" of anything. If you have to work hard to find some evidence, any evidence, to support your ideas that is your first hint that the belief you started with is probably wrong and you might need to prepare yourself to change your mind. I suggest that you either find us enough evidence to change our minds, or that you change your own mind. Doing anything else just doesn't cut the mustard. |